Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c33.s5: 5. Logic and Atomism

A History of Sanskrit Literature c33.s5

Language
English

5. Logic and Atomism

c33.s5.1

We may fairly find the impulse to logic² as given by the investigation of the Mīmāṅsā school; the term Nyāya suggests this conclusion, and it is entirely in accord with common sense, though of course it was a distinct act to advance to what may fairly be deemed logical science. Of the antiquity of logic we have no real knowledge; efforts to find it early in Buddhism are ruined by the lateness of Buddhist texts, and the attempts to ascribe the beginnings of the *Nyāya Sūtra*³ to a Gotama (*c.* 500 B. C.), while the true Nyāya is ascribed to Akṣapāda (*c.* A. D. 150) rest on no adequate ground. Nor can we reach any result by the argument⁴ that the commentator Vātsyāyana preceded the *Māṭhara Vṛtti* on the *Sāṁkhyakārikā*, and it the *Anuyogadvārasūtra* of the Jains, for, apart from the fact that the Jain Sūtra is only as it stands authority for the fifth century at best, the *Māṭhara Vṛtti*, as we have it, is not an early text.¹ All that we really know is that the *Nyāya Sūtra* as it stands, a compilation no doubt representing earlier thought, takes cognizance of the nihilistic school of Buddhism, probably as it developed in the first century A. D. And even that result is uncertain. The *Vaiçeṣika Sūtra* is likewise of wholly uncertain date, though probably more or less contemporaneous with the *Nyāya*. If the *Nyāya* essentially gives us a logic, the *Vaiçeṣika* represents a naturalistic view which finds in atoms the basis of the material world, but both Sūtras accept in some measure the view of the other. Kaṇāda, the alleged author of the *Vaiçeṣika Sūtra*, is a mere nickname, and the Sūtra shows much unevenness of composition. The rise of the Vaiçeṣika has been ascribed to the second century B. C. on the score that it is attacked by Açvaghoṣa, and that it agrees in many points with the Jain philosophical views; thus it believes in the real activity of the soul, denied by the Vedānta of Çaṅkara, holds the effect to be different from the cause, the qualities from the substance, and accepts atoms. But this is quite inconclusive, and we cannot say even that the Vaiçeṣika ever was materialistic in the Lokāyata sense of deriving the soul from matter. The question of the original view of the two Sūtras as to God is disputed, but at least both say very little on the topic, and that little may be due to working over at the time when they had become definitely theistic schools.

c33.s5.2

² Keith, *Indian Logic and Atomism* (1921); S. C. Vidyabhusana, *History of Indian Logic* (1921); B. Faddegon, *The Vaiçeṣika System* (1918); G. Jhā in *Indian Thought* and *POCP.* 1919, ii. 281–5 (on original atheism of the Nyāya).

c33.s5.3

³ Vidyabhusana, p. 47.

c33.s5.4

⁴ A. B. Dhruva, *POCP.* 1919, ii. 264 ff. His argument is vitiated by reliance on the Jain texts as evidence for 300 B. C.

c33.s5.5

¹ See Keith, *BSOS.* iii. 551 ff.

c33.s5.6

The *Nyāya Sūtra* found an expositor in Pakṣilasvāmin Vātsyāyana, who wrote the *Nyāyabhāṣya*² before the Buddhist logical Dignāga. His work resembles in style the *Mahābhāṣya*, and he propounds modifications of the Sūtra in short sentences comparable to Vārttikas, but this is far from sufficient to justify us in assigning him to the second century B. C. The fourth century is more plausible, though a rather earlier date is not excluded. Uddyotakara Bhāradvāja, a fervent sectarian of the Pāçupata belief, in his *Nyāyavārttika*³ defended Vātsyāyana and explained the Sūtra and Bhāṣya; his date falls *c.* A. D. 620. A further comment on this work was written by Vācaspati Miçra (*c.* 850) in the *Nyāyavārttikatātparyaṭīkā*,¹ on which Udayana in the tenth century wrote the *Tātparyapariçuddhi*.² Udayana, as a convinced theist, in his *Kusumāñjali*³ in Kārikās with a prose explanation proved the existence of God, and in the *Bauddhadhikkāra*⁴ assailed the Buddhists, who had developed an important school of thought which manifestly greatly influenced the Nyāya itself.

c33.s5.7

² E. Windisch, *Über das Nyāyabhâshya* (1888).

c33.s5.8

³ Ed. *BI.* 1907.

c33.s5.9

¹ Ed. VizSS. 12, 1898.

c33.s5.10

² Ed. BI. 1911–24.

c33.s5.11

³ Ed. BI. 1888–95.

c33.s5.12

⁴ Ed. Calcutta, 1849 and 1873, as *Ātmatattvaviveka*.

c33.s5.13

Dignāga, the chief of the early Buddhist logicians, lived probably before a. d. 400; writing the *Pramāṇasamuccaya*, *Nyāyapraveça*, and other texts, most of which are preserved only in translations.⁵ Dharmakīrti attacked Uddyotakara in vindication of Dignāga in the seventh century, and his *Nyāyabindu*⁶ has fortunately been preserved, with the comment of Dharmottara (*c.* 800) and the super-comment, *Nyāyabinduṭīkāṭippanī*,⁷ of Mallavādin, probably written shortly afterwards. Much less important are the Jain works, of which Siddhasena Divākara's *Nyāyāvatāra*⁸ is assigned dubiously to a. d. 533, while Māṇikya Nandin's *Parīkṣāmukhasūtra*,⁹ on which Anantavīrya commented in the eleventh century, may be dated *c.* 800. Hemacandra (1088–1172) wrote a *Pramāṇamīmāṅsā* in Sūtra style. Polemical matter against these Buddhist, and in a minor degree Jain, comments is to be found in Jayanta's *Nyāyamañjarī*¹⁰ (9th cent.), which comments on the Sūtras; Bhāsarvajña's *Nyāyasāra*¹¹ (*c.* 900), which shows a marked Çaiva tendency and embodies Vaiçeṣika doctrines; and Varadarāja's *Tārkikarakṣā*,¹² which knows Kumārila and was used in the *Sarvadarçanasaṁgraha* (*c.* 1350).

c33.s5.14

⁵ S. C. Vidyabhusana, *Indian Logic*, pp. 27 ff. *Nyāyapraveça* is ed. Baroda, 1927.

c33.s5.15

⁶ Ed. BI. 1889. On Dharmottara's date, Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxix. 278 f.

c33.s5.16

⁷ Ed. BB. xi. 1909.

c33.s5.17

⁸ Ed. Calcutta, 1908.

c33.s5.18

⁹ Ed. BI. 1909.

c33.s5.19

¹⁰ Ed. VizSS. 1895.

c33.s5.20

¹¹ Ed. BI. 1910.

c33.s5.21

¹² Ed. *Pandit*, N.S. xxi–xxv.

c33.s5.22

A definite step in the history of the Nyāya was marked by the appearance of Gaṅgeça's *Tattvacintāmaṇi*¹³ (*c.* 1200) in four books, which expounds with much subtlety the means of proof permitted in the Nyāya, incidentally expounding the metaphysics of the school at the same time. Gaṅgeça was no mean philosopher, though it seems difficult to call his prose clear and simple, though it is both compared to the diction of his commentators. These include his own son Vardhamāna, the dramatist Jayadeva, and, most famous of all, Raghunātha Çiromaṇi¹ (*c.* 1500), on whom Gadādhara commented (*c.* 1700), and Mathurānātha. This is scholasticism of the worst description, in which definitions alone were of interest, and it is regrettable that in the sixteenth century the Sanskrit schools of Navadvīpa formed the centre of intellectual life in the country, since but for their overloading of his doctrine Gaṅgeça's real merits might have been recognized more widely. In point of fact, from a rough system of argument from examples Indian logic rose to a developed and able scheme of inference based on universals, and the formation of universals it explained by a well-thought-out metaphysical theory. Buddhist logic, again, in the hands of Dignāga developed a doctrine of knowledge which certainly deserves careful study and which in certain aspects shows close affinity to the views of Kant, though the likeness has sometimes been exaggerated.

c33.s5.23

¹³ Ed. BI. 1888–1901.

c33.s5.24

¹ *Dīdhiti* ed. with the *Gādādharī*, ChSS. nos. 186, 187. For a specimen of scholasticism see S. Sen, *A Study on Mathurānātha's Tattvacintāmaṇirahasya* (1924).

c33.s5.25

The *Vaiçeṣika Sūtra*² was far less fortunate; it was taken up and given new life by Praçastapāda in his *Padārthadharmasaṁgraha*,³ which is not a comment on the Sūtra but a completely new exposition of the same subject-matter, with additions of importance. The date of the author depends on his relation to Dignāga, who seems to have influenced his logical views, so that he may be assigned to the fifth century A. D. A commentary on his work, the *Nyāyakandalī* of Çrīdhara, belongs to 991. We find in him the same view of theism and the addition of non-existence as a seventh to the six Vaiçeṣika categories—substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, Viçeṣa—whence the name of the system is usually derived, and inseparable relation. Udayana also wrote a comment, *Kiraṇāvalī*⁴ on Praçastapāda's Bhāṣya, and an independent text, the *Lakṣaṇāvalī*.⁵ It is clear that the Sūtra contains matter which was not before the commentators, and that they knew Sūtras which it does not notice. A formal comment on the Sūtra is that of Çaṅkara Miçra, the *Upaskāra*,¹ which dates from *c.* 1600 and is far from adequate.

c33.s5.26

² Ed. Candrakānta Tarkālaṁkāra, Calcutta, 1887; also BI. 1861; BenSS. 1885 ff.

c33.s5.27

³ Ed. VizSS. 1895; trans. G. Jha, *Pandit*, N.S. xxv–xxxiv.

c33.s5.28

⁴ Ed. in part BenSS.

c33.s5.29

⁵ Ed. *Pandit*, N.S. xxi and xxii.

c33.s5.30

¹ Ed. BI. 1861.

c33.s5.31

As practical guides to the two schools serve a number of short handbooks which deal with the doctrines of both as a whole and present a fusion of the two traditions. One of the earliest of these is Çivāditya's *Saptapadārthī*,² which is earlier than Gañgeça; Keçava Miçra's *Tarkabhāṣā*³ is variously assigned to the thirteenth or fourteenth century; Laugākṣi Bhāskara's *Tarkakaumudī*⁴ is by the author of the *Arthasaṁgraha* on the *Mīmāṁsā*, and may be after 1400; Annam Bhaṭṭa, a native of southern India, wrote his *Tarkasaṁgraha*⁵ with an important commentary before 1585, and the *Tarkāmṛta*⁶ of Jagadīça falls *c.* 1700. The *Bhāṣāpariccheda*⁷ of Viçvanātha is approximately dated by the fact that its author commented on the *Nyāya Sūtra* in 1634; the text is in 166 memorial verses, some of which are borrowed from older sources, as is seen from the fact that they are given also in Sureçvara's *Mānasollāsa*, where they doubtless represent borrowing from a contemporary text. In this period divergences of view between Vaiçeṣika and Nyāya had reduced themselves to very minor, not to say scholastic, points. The schools were now fully theistic, as had individual adherents been for a long time; Udayana, like Uddyotakara, was a Çaiva and identified God with Çiva, and the Buddhist writers Guṇaratna and Rājaçekhara report on the Çaiva affiliations of Nyāya and Vaiçeṣika sects in their time.

c33.s5.32

² Ed. A. Winter, Leipzig, 1893; trans. ZDMG. liii. 328 ff.

c33.s5.33

³ Ed. S. M. Paranjape, Poona, 1909; trans. G. Jhā, IT. ii.

c33.s5.34

⁴ Ed. M. N. Dvivedī, BSS. 32, 1886; trans. E. Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxi. 763 ff.

c33.s5.35

⁵ Ed. BSS. 55, 1918; trans. E. Hultzsch, AGGW. ix. 5, 1907.

c33.s5.36

⁶ Ed. Calcutta, 1880.

c33.s5.37

⁷ Ed. BI. 1850; trans. E. Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxiv. 145 ff.

c33.s5.38

The interpretation of the physics of the Vaiçeṣika presents great difficulties, and it is extremely dubious if we are justified with modern scholars,⁸ Indian and Western, in seeking to read recent results into the simple and rather rude concepts of the ancient text which the commentators did little to refine. Their interest was metaphysical, and it is not usual for science and philosophy to be effectively combined. The effort to show that the Vaiçeṣika system is at the base of Caraka's system of medicine, dating that system *c.* A. D. 80 and thence deducing the early date of the Vaiśeṣika, appears quite invalid, resting as it does on two errors, the belief that the system is vital to Caraka, and the assumption that the text of Caraka dates from the first century A. D. Still more absurd is the attempt to make out the school to be pre-Buddhist and to be derived from the Pūrvamīmāṅsā.

c33.s5.39

⁸ R. Stübe, *Ann. d. Naturphil.*, viii. 483 ff.

Linked texts (26)